get_lists

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the return structure (title, description, per-repo descriptions) but does not disclose whether it is read-only, idempotent, requires authentication, or any side effects. The word 'Get' implies read, but not explicitly.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, no wasted words. Purpose is front-loaded, examples are helpful. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter tool without output schema, the description is fairly complete: it explains what lists contain and gives examples. However, it could clarify that it returns all available curated lists (implied but not explicit). No mention of pagination or count, but acceptable for this simplicity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has zero parameters, so description needs to add no parameter semantics. Following the guideline for 0 params, baseline is 4. The description does not contradict the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool gets curated lists, with concrete examples (best memory providers, top skills, deployment options). It distinguishes from siblings like get_list (which presumably gets a single list) and search_repos (which searches by query). The verb 'Get' and resource 'curated lists' are specific.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_list, search_repos, or get_featured. The description does not provide context for selection, making it difficult for an AI agent to choose correctly without external knowledge.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.